需要多少随机性才能阻止异步考试中的协作作弊?

Binglin Chen, Matthew West, C. Zilles
{"title":"需要多少随机性才能阻止异步考试中的协作作弊?","authors":"Binglin Chen, Matthew West, C. Zilles","doi":"10.1145/3231644.3231664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates randomization on asynchronous exams as a defense against collaborative cheating. Asynchronous exams are those for which students take the exam at different times, potentially across a multi-day exam period. Collaborative cheating occurs when one student (the information producer) takes the exam early and passes information about the exam to other students (the information consumers) that are taking the exam later. Using a dataset of computerized exam and homework problems in a single course with 425 students, we identified 5.5% of students (on average) as information consumers by their disproportionate studying of problems that were on the exam. These information consumers (\"cheaters\") had a significant advantage (13 percentage points on average) when every student was given the same exam problem (even when the parameters are randomized for each student), but that advantage dropped to almost negligible levels (2--3 percentage points) when students were given a random problem from a pool of two or four problems. We conclude that randomization with pools of four (or even three) problems, which also contain randomized parameters, is an effective mitigation for collaborative cheating. Our analysis suggests that this mitigation is in part explained by cheating students having less complete information about larger pools.","PeriodicalId":20634,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How much randomization is needed to deter collaborative cheating on asynchronous exams?\",\"authors\":\"Binglin Chen, Matthew West, C. Zilles\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3231644.3231664\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper investigates randomization on asynchronous exams as a defense against collaborative cheating. Asynchronous exams are those for which students take the exam at different times, potentially across a multi-day exam period. Collaborative cheating occurs when one student (the information producer) takes the exam early and passes information about the exam to other students (the information consumers) that are taking the exam later. Using a dataset of computerized exam and homework problems in a single course with 425 students, we identified 5.5% of students (on average) as information consumers by their disproportionate studying of problems that were on the exam. These information consumers (\\\"cheaters\\\") had a significant advantage (13 percentage points on average) when every student was given the same exam problem (even when the parameters are randomized for each student), but that advantage dropped to almost negligible levels (2--3 percentage points) when students were given a random problem from a pool of two or four problems. We conclude that randomization with pools of four (or even three) problems, which also contain randomized parameters, is an effective mitigation for collaborative cheating. Our analysis suggests that this mitigation is in part explained by cheating students having less complete information about larger pools.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3231644.3231664\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3231644.3231664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

本文研究了异步考试的随机化作为对协作作弊的防御。异步考试是指学生在不同时间参加考试的考试,可能是在一个多天的考试期间。当一个学生(信息生产者)提前参加考试,并将考试信息传递给后面参加考试的其他学生(信息消费者)时,就会发生协同作弊。使用计算机化考试和作业问题的数据集,在425名学生的单一课程中,我们确定5.5%的学生(平均)是信息消费者,因为他们不成比例地学习了考试中的问题。这些信息消费者(“作弊者”)在给每个学生同样的考题时(即使参数是随机的)有显著的优势(平均13个百分点),但当给学生从2个或4个问题中随机选择一个问题时,这种优势就下降到几乎可以忽略不计的水平(2- 3个百分点)。我们的结论是,包含随机参数的四个(甚至三个)问题池的随机化是一种有效的缓解协作作弊的方法。我们的分析表明,这种缓解部分是由于作弊学生对更大的池的信息不完整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How much randomization is needed to deter collaborative cheating on asynchronous exams?
This paper investigates randomization on asynchronous exams as a defense against collaborative cheating. Asynchronous exams are those for which students take the exam at different times, potentially across a multi-day exam period. Collaborative cheating occurs when one student (the information producer) takes the exam early and passes information about the exam to other students (the information consumers) that are taking the exam later. Using a dataset of computerized exam and homework problems in a single course with 425 students, we identified 5.5% of students (on average) as information consumers by their disproportionate studying of problems that were on the exam. These information consumers ("cheaters") had a significant advantage (13 percentage points on average) when every student was given the same exam problem (even when the parameters are randomized for each student), but that advantage dropped to almost negligible levels (2--3 percentage points) when students were given a random problem from a pool of two or four problems. We conclude that randomization with pools of four (or even three) problems, which also contain randomized parameters, is an effective mitigation for collaborative cheating. Our analysis suggests that this mitigation is in part explained by cheating students having less complete information about larger pools.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信